Viewpoint

The sociological eye means looking at things for what they are, as best we can given the blinders of interest and ideology, of cliché and ritualized belief. It is not an individual enterprise. Chaining our efforts together as a long-term network of theorists and researchers improves one’s own sociological vision, provided we make the effort. The sociological eye holds up a periscope above the tides of political and intellectual partisanship, spying out the patterns of social life in every direction.

Friday, July 7, 2017

North
Korea continues its march towards a nuclear-tipped ICBM capable of hitting
anywhere in the U.S. Military experts agree they will eventually have this
ultimate weapon, although maybe not until the end of Trump’s 4-year term.

What
can be done to stop it? All the proposals have terrible drawbacks. A
pre-emptive strike to knock out North Korea’s missile launchers, storehouses
and military facilities would certainly fall short of 100%, leaving North Korea
able to retaliate by killing tens of millions of people in South Korea and
Japan and conceivably a few American targets. And if we didn’t also obliterate
their ground forces, artillery, and submarines, their conventional weapons
could devastate Seoul and elsewhere. A covert plan to assassinate the dictator
Kim Jong Un would be extremely difficult to arrange, given his paranoia and
lack of insider information about his precise whereabouts; and there is no
guarantee his successor would be any different.

The
remaining alternative-- tightening economic sanctions-- does not look
promising. It has been attempted against North Korea unsuccessfully for
decades. And in general, economic sanctions have a very poor track record in
dissuading rogue regimes anywhere.

Nevertheless,
there are some grounds for optimism. We are back in a Cold War situation with
North Korea. But our 45-year Cold War with the Soviet Union and China has some
favorable lessons. Nuclear war did not happen, above all because of mutual
deterrence by nuclear weapons. And both the Soviet bloc and Communist China
succumbed, unexpectedly, to what might be called the blue jeans offensive: the
lure of Western consumerism.

There
are also good sociological grounds for reversing North Korea’s hostility. Here
we need to remind ourselves of the social psychology of collective hostility,
as well as of de-escalation. Isolating an enemy is just the wrong way to change
their behavior. Our historical experience with Russia and China shows how to do
it right.

The Cold War Nuclear Standoff

The
U.S. exploded its first atom bomb in 1945; the Soviets four years later in
1949. The pace picked up: the first U.S. hydrogen bomb was 1952; the first
Soviet H-bomb 1953. By 1957 the Soviets jumped ahead with their Sputnik rocket.
This was not just the prestige of the space race, but an ICBM-- an
intercontinental ballistics missile capable of hitting targets across the
globe. The US soon had their own ICBMs (not to mention long-distance bomber
fleets with aerial refueling, and submarine-launched missiles). By the late 50s
magazine articles wereexplaining
how to build backyard bomb shelters. When I was a kid, being woken up by a
lightning storm made me think nuclear war had started. In 1964 Dr. Strangelove showed us on screen how
the end of the world could happen.

By the
1970s, Soviet and US nuclear arsenals were so large that they could annihilate
all animal life on the planet, through poisonous radiation drifting around the
globe and the likelihood of a nuclear winter when the sun didn’t shine for
years.

But it
didn’t happen. Nuclear weapons were never used in war (except against Japan,
when only one nation had them), even with proliferation to the UK, France,
China, Pakistan, India, and probably Israel. Why not? In retrospect, we can see
that mutually assured destruction (MAD) made everyone realize that escalation
on that scale was too risky. Even conventional war between the great powers
(i.e. nuclear-armed powers) ceased as well. Despite threats, the last direct
great power war was the Korean War during 1950-3, when Chinese and US troops
fought. Since then, wars have been proxy wars with conventional weapons
supplied from outside. At the time, we thought MAD was madness-- an unconscious
joke in the acronym. But in fact it worked. Governments were not crazy enough
to start a war that is certain to annihilate their country.

This
is the first piece of good news from the Cold War: a nuclear arms race is
survivable. And it leads to a second piece of good news: devastating threats on
both sides eventually foster negotiation.

The Slow Process of
De-escalation

As
awareness grows about the consequences of nuclear war for both sides, another
process sets in. The steps at first are small, putting in place safeguards
against accidental escalation. Some steps came from the scare of looking over
the brink. The 1962 Cuban missile crisis started with intelligence that the
Soviets were shipping medium-range missiles to Cuba. Their motive was adding
another arm to Russia-based ICBMs, and bolstering a new ally, while the Soviets
basked in a wave of global decolonization and left-wing revolutions. But after
John F. Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and their secret emergency committee found a
way to combine their own nuclear threat with some small concessions, Khrushchev
backed down and withdrew the missiles. Next year, they established a telephone
“hot line” between Washington and Moscow to be used in case of nuclear threats.

Further
steps happened in following decades. In 1979, Carter and Brezhnev agreed on a
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) which set modest ceilings on particular
kinds of nuclear stockpiles. Things went back and forth. Reagan ran for
president in 1980 on the issue of the “window of vulnerability”-- that the
Soviets had so many extra missiles they could destroy our missile launchers in
a sudden first strike, then have enough left to threaten a second strike
against our cities unless we surrendered. This was probably not in the cards,
since our nuclear tripod (missiles, bombers, submarines) could not be knocked
out in that way-- paralleling our problem today with Kim Jong Un’s North Korea.
At any rate, Reagan got elected (probably more because of the humiliation of
the Iranian hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran), and proceeded
ona renewed arms buildup.Nevertheless, when Gorbachev came to
power in 1985, Reagan established a personal relationship with him, and opened
further SALT negotiations. Part of the widespread enthusiasm for Gorbachev
during those years-- not only in the USSR and its satellites, but Western
Europe as well-- was the feeling that the threat of nuclear war was finally
over. In this atmosphere came the popular movements that broke up the Soviet
bloc, and eventually massive reduction of armaments in the 1990s on both sides.

The Blue Jeans Offensive

The
slow process of pulling back from the nuclear arms race was accelerated by an
unexpected development. Up through the 1980s, citizens of the communist regimes
were restricted from traveling to the West, but gradually European and American
tourists began to trickle inside the Iron Curtain. There they found it was
worthwhile to carry an extra pair of blue jeans, because they could barter it
for the cost of their trip. Consumer goods were scarcely available, and
communist citizens were eager for anything that looked fashionable and hip. The
cult of American jazz had existed in Russia-- usually the records were years
out of date, but the Soviets at least approved of Negro musicians as an
oppressed group. More up-to-date styles from the 60s and 70s gradually filtered
into awareness of communist youth.* The state-run economies had made great
strides in recovering from WWII, but concentrated almost entirely in heavy
industry and military buildup. As long as the communist regimes controlled
culture and propaganda, they promoted an image of the evil capitalists of the
West keeping their workers in poverty. Once contacts started to open up,
another reality seeped in.

* I
remember traveling to Budapest with my daughter in 1986, where a man at the
train station, eager for western currency, offered us a bargain rate on a
hotel, which turned out to be his apartment in a collective living complex. In
the dining hall were a tour group of Russians, dancing to a rock n’roll band
from the 50s. They were allowed to go as far as Hungary, on the border of the
West, but no further.

Gorbachev’s
turn towards reforming the communist system started in the 1970s, when as a
reward for political loyalty he was allowed to travel with his wife on a visit
to Italy. They had their own car, saw how many other people had cars, TVs, and
nice clothes, and returned with a vision of what the real Soviet future should
be like.

China,
too, after the first steps towards opening to the world were made in the 1970s,
discovered Western consumer goods in the 1980s and 90s, and became their
mainstay of production for the world market.

America’s
greatest asset internationally is its consumer way of life. Not just that we
have more stuff; we have more cool stuff. The communists’ most vulnerable point
is that they are not cool. We beat them when we’re not fighting them because
they want to be us.

Isolation Breeds Group
Solidarity

The
policy of isolating an enemy until they change their behavior does not work. It
has not worked in the past. Basic social psychology of solidarity and
conformity shows why.

The
ingredients that produce high levels of group solidarity are a combination of:

--
isolation of the group from outsiders

--
mutual focus of attention, all paying attention to the same thing

-- a
shared emotion

When
the three ingredients get stronger, they feed back on each other. Paying
attention to other persons and seeing them express the same emotion makes one’s
own emotion stronger; stronger emotion makes one pay more attention to what’s
causing it; both processes increase isolation from people not in the loop.

When
people experience a rush of these ingredients, they feel a sense of solidarity
and group identity; heightened identification with the symbols of the group;
stronger attachment to our beliefs,
and decreased tolerance of non-conformity. We’re
in this; you should be in it
too.At high levels of solidarity,
people are ready to fight over perceived insults from outsiders, even when
there is no material damage.

Conflict
with an outside group has an especially strong effect.Conflict makes both sides set up
barriers; it makes us concentrate on the enemy and on our own leaders. The more
violent the conflict, the more we feel fear and anger towards the enemy, while
we pump up pride and support for our team. This has been called the
“rally-round-the-flag effect.”

The
ingredients of solidarity and conformity operate on the level of small groups
of individuals; but also on medium size groups like organizations and social
movements. They also operate on very large groups like states,provided they have mass communications
so that everyone can focus on the same thing. That is why the era of
nationalism began in the era of newspapers in the 1800s, and strengthened when
other broadcast media developed like radio in the 1920s and TV in the 1950s.

The
strength of the ingredients determines the strength of the outcomes. But most
ingredients cannot remain intense for a long time. I measured these processes
in the days and months after the attack of 9/11/2001, and found that the
maximal amount of displaying national symbols (flags, images of firefighters)
was in the first three months, then began to decline. Political discussion and
dissent was more or less forbidden during those months; but around Christmas
time, articles started appearing about “Is it okay to take our flags down
now?”For those few months,
President George W. Bush, whose approval rating before and afterwards was
rather low, shot up to 90%, the highest on record.

In a
complex society like the modern U.S., it takes a tremendous amount of shared
emotion to keep people coming to public gatherings like those commemorating
firefighters and police in the fall of 2001. After a while, their focus of
attention goes back to their local and private concerns, their emotion falls,
and their commitment to the cause of defeating the enemy declines. We saw the
growing division of pro-war and anti-war factions from 2002 onwards.

All
this is understandable through sociological theory of solidarity. The
tremendous shock of the 9/11 attacks, stories about the victims’ families, the
heroism of the firefighters and cops, were broadcast everywhere and monopolized
everyone’s attention for the first few months. But a complex society has many
things to pay attention to, and a media-rich democracy cannot force people to
keep replaying the high-intensity solidarity ritual when they no longer feel
like it. This is different in a dictatorship, which monopolizes the media and
enforces attention on a single message from the regime.

Flip
this over to the point of view of our enemies. Their media tells them that we are a terrible threat; they are the heroes resisting the bad guys.Their media are inescapable: in North
Korea, loud-speakers are on every street corner. No doubt there is an
artificial strain of keeping up the required emotions-- fear of outsiders; love
of our Dear Leader. [See Faces Around A Dictator] But the other
ingredients are too strong: no alternatives to the single focus of attention;
isolation from any contacts to the outside.

Our
policy of trying to change enemy states by isolating them is worse than
ironic.Isolation is exactly the
condition that makes them more confirmed in their beliefs.

Why do we keep on doing it?

If
isolating the enemy is such a counter-productive strategy, why does it appeal
to us so strongly?

For
one thing, conflict processes are symmetrical across both sides. Once a
conflict gets intense, we both feel angry at the other, paint the other as a
fearful demon, adulate our brave fighters and our leaders. We try to isolate
ourselves from having any human contact with them, just as they do towards us.

People
who like to think of themselves as civilized may consider isolation a humane
way to deal with the problem, rather than resorting to violence. The
old-fashioned way of disciplining children was “go stand in the corner until
you behave.” This was updated by modern child psychology into the “time-out.”
But it only works if-- like a parent with small children-- you have total
superiority of power (which is not the case between militarized states).

And it
only works when isolating an individual.If the bad-actor is a group, punishing them by isolating them together
doesn’t work. This is putting gang members together in prison with members of
the same demographic; it recruits new members and strengthens the gang
organization and its culture. Isolating a group not only won’t change their
behavior; it makes it worse.

How to reduce enemy hostility

The
theoretical model of group solidarity shows a solution. To reduce their hostile
emotions and the beliefs that support them, break up the single focus of
attention. The best way to do this is to reduce isolation, so there are more things
outside themselves to pay attention to.

The
Cold War gives evidence of how a policy of reducing isolation works to
transform international enemies. In summer 1971, Nixon sent Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger on a secret mission to China. Kissinger, a political scientist,
was trying to exploit the Sino-Soviet split. He worked out a deal that the U.S.
would not oppose the PRC taking Nationalist China’s seat (practically speaking,
Taiwan) on the United Nations Security Council. Six months later, Nixon himself
traveled to China and met Mao Zedong, where they agreed to establish some form
of diplomatic relations. This is remarkable enough, considering it was at the
time when China was just emerging from the Red Guards movement that nearly tore
the country apart in 1966-68; and the U.S. was still bogged down in the Vietnam
War.But there is an underlying
logic: both sides were trying to get out of their own quagmires; de-escalating
at least one piece of international hostilities was a victory for both.

Within
a few years, Mao was dead, the Gang of Four eliminated, and in 1977 the
reformer Deng Xiaoping was reinstated. Soon came full diplomatic relations and
Deng’s visit to the U.S. In the 1980s market-oriented reforms were launched,
burgeoning in the 1990s. China soon became the chief supplier of the U.S.
consumer economy. In recent years, 30 years in, America has become the place
where Chinese want to send their kids to college and where they themselves want
to live.

China
and Russia are the positive cases of how ending isolation led to a whole-sale
shift away from communism and hostility to the West. China is the strongest
case, because it has become so highly integrated into the market for western
consumer goods, both as producer and consumer. Russia somewhat less so, since
its export economy remained heavy industries, oil and military equipment.A glaring negative case is Cuba, where
a strict policy of isolation has kept the communist regime stagnant for over 50
years. The presence of a large group of anti-communist refugees in Florida has
kept the old polarization alive: the older generation of refugees has been a
veto group in U.S. politics, preventing any moves that would actually change
Cuba into becoming more like the U.S.We may soon see the effects of more commercial connections between
ordinary Americans and Cuba.

The solution tothe North Korean nuclear threat

The
solution is right before our faces. Pursue the policies of Nixon and Reagan in
opening up and de-escalating conflict with China and Russia. This is not a
quick process. With China, it took 20 years to pay off.With Russia, results were quicker, but
the blue-jeans offensive was already doing its work.

The
last is what we should be pushing above all.We do not want North Korea exporting or importing military
goods. We have little to gain from letting them open up to the world market in
heavy industry. But U.S. policy should be trying to facilitate ways thatAmerican consumer products-- for that
matter, Western and Japanese consumer products in general-- can get into North
Korea.Hello Kitty, Japanese toy
fads, American smart phones and action-adventure movies: whatever is hip and
stylish. This is the soft offensive that can break the psychological isolation
of North Koreans and put them on the Russian and Chinese path.

That
means we need to get over the self-righteous emotional jolt of demanding that
they go stand in the corner. It is far from clear we will get over it soon.
Right now its easy political appeal is shared on bothsides of the political spectrum. But sometimes professional
diplomats, international entrepreneurs and maverick presidents make a
difference.

So
there are two hopeful messages, one quite confident: Cold Wars threatening
nuclear destruction can and do de-escalate. The second is more chancy, but
possible through processes from below: the blue jeans offensive translated into
today’s consumer fads. Either way, the world can survive North Korea.

References

David
R. Gibson. 2012.Talk at the Brink. Deliberation and
Decision-making during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

David
Skarbeck. 2014.The Social Order of the Underworld. How
Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System.

Randall
Collins. 2011. “C-Escalation and D-escalation: A Theory of the Time-Dynamics of
Violence.” American Sociological Review.

Randall
Collins. 2004.“Rituals of
Solidarity and Security in the Wake of Terrorist attack.” Sociological Theory.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

What does a dictator look like in
action?There is a distinctive
pattern, but it is visible not so much on the dictator’s own face as in the
expressions of the persons surrounding him or her. (Since all the dictators
that I know about and have photos of are men, I will use the male pronoun.)

The dictator is the center of rapt
attention. It is compulsory to look at him, and dangerous to show any emotional
expression other than what the dictator is displaying. Faces surrounding a
dictator mirror his expressions, but in a strained and artificial way.

Let us examine a series of photos
of Kim Jong Un, the North Korean dictator.

Kim Jong Un smiles a lot for the
crowd, but that isn’t the striking thing. His smile is pallid and not very
warm, but the people around him are fervently smiling and applauding. They are
putting a lot of energy into it, trying to smile as hard as they can.

These are forced smiles. As
psychologist Paul Ekman has shown in detailed studies of the facial muscles
used in different kinds of emotions, smiles vary a great deal in intensity and
spontaneity. (For examples, see my blog: Mona Lisa is No Mystery forMicro-Sociology.)

Fake smiles can be easily
detected, as can the other emotions they are blended with. As we shall see,
faces around a dictator blend the required expression with give-away signs of
tension, anxiety, and fear.

It happens with all ranks. In the
following photos, Kim Jong Un’s rather perfunctory smiles are amplified by his
intently attentive generals, foot soldiers, and military women alike:

Conversely, when Kim Jong Un isn’t
smiling, nobody smiles. When he is serious, everyone looks serious. Surrounding
faces mirror his expression as best they can.

And mirror his body postures too:

Occasionally we see nervous eyes, like the man directly
behind Kim Jong Un, glancing sideways to monitor what
he is supposed to display:

Or the man who bites his lip,
peering forward to catch the dictator’s expression as he telephones an order:

The pattern is the same with the previous dictator, Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong Il:

The most exaggerated
expression is the safest: Kim Jong Il’s funeral

Photos of Kim Jong Il’s funeral, after his death in December
2011, show extraordinarily demonstrative expressions of grief, among all social
groups:

Well, almost all social groups. In the following photo, the
well-dressed women of the North Korean elite show the most intense grief, as
they reach the top of the red carpet. Further back in the queue, postures are
more restrained, and the guards and attendants along the side are stolid and
unexpressive.

A notable exception is Kim Jong Un himself, who shows no
grief but looks a little worried.

The over-the-top expressions of
grief are confined to the North Koreans. Photos of foreign dignitaries at the
funeral show them somber and respectful, bowing politely but showing no strong
emotions, let alone such ostensibly heart-rending displays. These are not
normal behavior at East Asian funerals.

Compulsory Front-stage performance of loyalty

We have seen the pattern. People
around the dictator, and particular those of high rank, mirror his expressions
and re-broadcast them at even higher intensity. They put a lot of effort into
it, so that their expressions look forced and unnatural. They look
over-the-top. The dictator himself doesn’t look strained, but the people around
him do.

Their expressions are not merely
for the eyes of the dictator. He doesn’t, on the whole, appear to be giving
them too much attention. Their expressions are for each other, broadcasting the
message that they are buying into the show as strongly as possible. They are
always on-stage for each other, sending the message of loyalty to the dictator.
It is a competitive situation, to show who is most loyal of all.The competition is strongest among the
elite—those closest to the dictator—because these are the persons who pose the
greatest potential threat. Quite likely there is an atmosphere of suspicion
and denunciation, as jockeying for power and favor takes place by detecting
signs of disloyalty among his followers—or even just lack of enthusiasm. *

* A former student of mine, who
had been a teenage girl at the time of the Red Guards movement in China, told
me that the hardest thing about the omnipresent public demonstrations was
keeping up the tone of fervent enthusiasm. It was dangerous not to; it could
get you pilloried as one of the counter-revolutionaries. When I introduced this
sociology student to Goffman’s concepts of frontstage and backstage, she immediately
characterized the most onerous part of the Red Guards movement as the
compulsion to express extreme emotions that one didn’t really feel--you were always on stage.

This is why we see such extreme
expressions of grief at the dictator’s funeral—a time of most intense jockeying
for power in the succession.

The succession crisis of dictators

Even when there is a family
succession, a de facto hereditary dictatorship, there is tension. The oldest
son does not necessarily succeed (Kim Jong Un was the third son of Kim Jong
Il), since the father may weigh who is most competent at wielding power. Photos
of father and heir show a distinctive pattern:

Here we see Kim Il-sung, founder of the North Korean regime,
and his son Kim Jong Il. The son is mirroring the smile and body posture of his
father, although older man looks confident and at ease, the son more tense. We
see the same again in a photo of Kim Jong Il as dictator, with Kim Jong Un as
heir apparent:

The following photo, taken in the last year of Kim Jong Il’s
life, is revealing because of the elite audience watching the interaction
between father and son.Kim Jong
Un is leaning deferentially towards his father, showing the uncertainty and
touch of anxiety he often showed in his father’s presence.Faces of the onlookers who can see both
of them most clearly have a wary look. One man is pursing his lips to one side,
giving a distorted look to his face (Ekman notes that an asymmetrical face,
showing different expressions on different sides, is a sign of mixed or
conflicting emotions.)The
onlookers don’t quite know who they should be mirroring here:

Why close is dangerous

In a dictatorship where loyalty is always suspect and must
be constantly demonstrated, those nearest to power are the most dangerous. This
was illustrated within two years of Kim Jong Un’s formal succession. His uncle,
Jang Song-thaek, 40 years older than the young heir, acted as informal regent.
The following picture, taken during that early period, suggests guarded suspicion
between the two:

By September 2013, however, Kim Jong Un was leading the
public smiles, and his uncle was following along:

By December 2013, the uncle was arrested, tried, and
executed. Reportedly, he had plotted a coup. Or perhaps he just aroused
suspicion, by not giving off the right emotional displays. Soon after, the rest
of the uncle’s family apparently were executed too.

Since then, an older brother was killed.And the dictator is back to smiling,
surrounded by the wary, mirroring faces that characterize the dictatorship:

American tourists, too

The photo of
American tourist Otto Warmbier being brought into court for sentencing in March
2016, after two months in captivity, closely resembles the photo above of Kim
Jong Un's uncle Jang Song-thaek
being led into the same court in 2013, just before he was executed.In both cases, the arrestee shows the
same posture: hopeless downcast eyes, body slumping in extreme depression.
Undoubtedly they had been put under relentless psychological pressure to
confess, and probably physical torture.

Their offenses, at
least initially, were different: Jang Song-thaek was charged with staging a coup d'etat; Otto Warmbier with defacing or
attempting to steal a government propaganda poster from his hotel just before
he got on the plane. After Warmbier was released in a coma from which he never
recovered, a North Korean official said his punishment was for trying to
overthrow the regime.

Most likely, Otto
Warmbier, acting like an American college student on vacation, was trying to
collect a souvenir poster (the way
we used to take bullfight posters or beer coasters). But youthful pranks are not recognized in the official
culture of the North Korean dictatorship. Every expression is deadly serious in
its consequence, and every individual is under suspicion.

In such regimes,
there is no private life and no backstage fun and games.Disrespecting a symbol is taken as an
attack on the regime it symbolizes.What can be done? That is a complicated political and military problem.
It would be an enormous step for the regime to loosen up, just to allow a space
for trivial matters.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

It is well known that Donald Trump is an
unusual-- not to say strange-- person. A striking instance comes from images of
Trump just after he was elected President, the night of November 8, 2016.

One might expect his face would show happiness,
elation, or perhaps surprise. In fact, what we see in something entirely
different.

Analyzing these photo images in detail, Dr.
Anne Nassauer, sociologist at the Free University Berlin, found that they
consistently showed sadness on Trump's face.

Nassauer uses the method of analyzing the
facial expression of emotions developed by psychologist Paul Ekman. Based on
decades of research in many cultures around the world, Ekman concluded there
are six basic emotions that are visually recognized everywhere, and thus are
universal among humans. The facial muscles that go into these emotions are the
same, although persons can try to inhibit or mask their emotions by
deliberately controlling facial muscles and body postures and gestures.

Thus we can analyze both spontaneous emotions
and the attempts at emotional self-presentation or deceit. On the whole, people
tend to think of emotions as expressed in the mouth-- smiley mouth, sad mouth,
etc. But the mouth has the muscles which are easiest to control, and this is
where we do most of our emotionalpretences and performances.

Emotions are expressed on three zones of the
face: the brows and forehead; the muscles around the eyes; and the lower face.
The eye muscles are hardest to control consciously, and these are the strongest
cues to the genuine emotion. Thus put-on or faked smiles are made with the
mouth, but the eyes and brows give them away.

Sadness is shown in the face by the following
clues:

-- The inner corners of the eyebrows are drawn
up.

-- The skin below the eyebrow makes a triangle,
with the inner corner up.

-- The upper eyelid inner corner is raised.

-- The corners of the lips are down, or the lip
is trembling.

(from Ekman and Friesen, 126)

The following photo shows the brows and eyelids
in the sad face, while the lower part of the face is neutral:

The next photo isolates the lower face, while
the brows and eyes are neutral. There are two ways that sadness appears on the
mouth: the left photo shows the corners of the mouth turned down. (This never
happens as drastically as the cartoon-caricature of the sad mouth; a small
downturn is sufficient to convey the expression.)

The right photo shows lips which are trembling
and tight, an unconscious effort to control the sounds of grief.

The next set of photos shows sadness in the
full face, with the two different sad mouths on left and right.

Close-ups of Trump's face as he acknowledges
his election match the sadness clues for brows and eyes. The photo on the left
shows slight sadness in the mouth as well. The photo on the right suggests an
ostensible effort at a smile (mainly from the diagonal naso-labial folds that
make a triangle shape from the nose to the corners of the mouth). But on the
whole this is the tight-lipped, tense mouth, an effort to control one's
emotion.

For further comparison, female and male
full-face sadness:

Sadness is expressed in different degrees: from
left to right, subtle, mild, and strong:

And in female faces: slight sadness on the
left, stronger sadness on the right:

Sadness can also blend with other emotions. The
following photo blends sadness and fear:

But this, for the most part, is not Trump's
expression. The following pair shows a blend of sadness and happiness on the
left; the right is a close-up of Trump's face as he appeared on the stage with
his family:

Here one can see clearly the contrast between
Trump's face and the happiness show by his family members: (Melania Trump
maintains her professional model's expression.)

The following photo of full-face sadness shows
sad eyes and brows extremely well, and also the characteristic lines in the
center of the forehead made by the upward pull of the inner eyebrows. This is
known as the Omega face, after the Greek letter.

Why is Trump sad, just when he makes his first
public appearance after being elected President? Later he admitted privately
that he had not expected to win, given the final polls. He was surprised by the
result; but surprise is not what we see on his face. Surprise is a rapid
emotion, and there was plenty of time to get over it during the course of the
evening as the results came in.

The sadness is peculiar to Trump. It is not
shown on the faces of his running-mate Mike Pence or of his family. Almost certainly
it is an unconscious emotion.

My conjecture (which agrees with that suggested
by Anne Nassauer) is that Trump was realizing his life is going to change,
drastically. He has been a free-wheeling entrepreneur all his life, the head of
a closely-held business. He has run it with quick decisions, exerting personal
control, relying on family members and trusted followers. It must have dawned
on him that he was entering an entirely new kind of organization: much more
constraining, more bureaucratic and political pressures, less freedom to buy
and sell, hire and fire at will.

I am not suggesting that these thoughts were
going through his mind. Trump's pattern is to put his thoughts almost
immediately into words, spoken or tweeted. But our feelings are a trajectory
going forward, against the background of our past. Donald Trump's first
reaction to facing the public in his new role as President-elect was sadness.
Sadness for what he was leaving.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The
defeat of Hillary Clinton raises the question whether women are leaders in the
same way as men. This is not a rhetorical question.

As a sociologicaltheorist, I am inclined to think that
men and women operate according to the same social processes. To put it another
way: the dynamics of power in politics, social movements, and organizations operate
the same way no matter who is in them. The process shapes the person.

Men
and women have been different, historically, when and because they lived in
different social spheres. Changing forms of state, family, and economy had
drastically different ways of using men and women and shaping their possibilities.

But
this is just a framework, not a proof. The question of when women are leaders--
and more specifically, charismatic leaders-- is an empirical one.

Four kinds of charisma

Start
with a list of ostensibly charismatic leaders who were women. Ostensibly,
because historical reputations are not always what they seem.

There
are four main ways of becoming a charismatic leader.

[1] Frontstage charisma: moving large
numbers of people into action as enthusiastic followers. Sometimes this is done
by impressive speech-making (especially in modern times); sometimes by leading
from the front (especially in pre-modern times). Dramatic public appearances
may also generate the impression of charisma, although we need to sort out
whether it is just a spectacle without real power to move people into action.

[2] Backstage charisma:gaining enthusiastic compliance in
private, face-to-face encounters. This is the power of emotional domination on
the personal level.

[3] Success-magic charisma:being perceived as unbeatable, running
off a string of successes even against improbable odds. This kind of charisma
is volatile and can vanish when it apparently no longer works. But even the
greatest of success-magic leaders (Jesus, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon)
came to bad ends, without losing their charisma. Unbroken success doesn’t
exist, but how charismatic leaders manage the gaps is distinctive.

[4] Reputational charisma:being known as charismatic (in any of
the above senses) amplifies one’s emotional appeal via a feedback loop. But
keep in mind the main criterion: leading enthusiastic followers into action.
Merely attracting attention or audience appeal is not the same as power;
celebrities and figureheads are trapped by their onlookers more than they lead
them. And there is a tendency for any famous names from the distant past to be
regarded as charismatic; it requires investigating whether they actually had
any of the first three types of charisma. Charisma is not the only mode of
leadership.

Charismatic
leaders were skilled at one or more social processes 1-2-3. By examining
micro-details of how they interacted with people in different kinds of
situations, we can assess how strong or weak they were in different areas.
Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar were superlatively good at all three--
frontstage, backstage, and success-magic charisma. Steve Jobs was emotionally
dominant in backstage encounters, learned to make enthusiasm-generating public
appearances, and had a run of success-magic interrupted by a lengthy down
period. Alexander was good at 1 and 3 but not 2.

Among
the women we will examine, Joan of Arc displayed all threecharismas in her brief career. She too
came to a bad end, but struggles for power are contentious, and a charismatic
leader for one side is not charismatic for the opposition.

We
will also look at Cleopatra, probably the most famous woman leader in history.
(The Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, may be even more widely known; but
her fame is derivative, and she was not in any way a charismatic leader.) Just
what Cleopatra’s charismatic skills were must be shown, leaving open the
possibility that she may be only a case of reputational pseudo-charisma.

Finally,
I will consider Jiang Qing, wife of Mao Zedong, and the principal instigator
and leader of the Cultural Revolution. Nominating women as charismatic leaders
from the present or very recent past has the disadvantage that partisan opinion
varies greatly about them. I am hesitant to suggest any women political leaders
now living just because they have fervent admirers. Considering Jiang Qing,
condemned and vilified as leader of the Gang of Four, has the advantage that we
can examine a genuinely mass movement that she set in motion. And as we shall
see, she combines some aspects of Cleopatra and Joan of Arc. Is it because of
the peculiar circumstances of power in Mao’s China that a charismatic woman
leader appears there, more characteristic of pre-modern societies than of
modern ones?As far as pathways to
charismatic power, modern democracy may be a game-changer, especially for
women, and not in the direction you might expect. Hence the value of looking at
charismatic pre-modern women, and such throw-backs that still exist outside of
modern democracies.

Joan of Arc

Jeanne
d’Arc (ca.1411 to 1431) had all the forms of charisma to an intense degree.

Frontstage charisma: She was not a great public
speaker. In an age of dynastic politics, without democratic assemblies, there
were few speeches except sermons of itinerant monks. But she moved people,
emotionally and physically.

In
battle, she led from the front. Although she wore armor and carried a sword,
personal violence was not how she led the battle line. She carried a banner
with the royal fleur-de-lysof France
and the soldiers would charge behind her. This was an era when commanders could
line up their troops for battle, but once it started, there was virtually no
way they could send orders. What kept troops in formation-- if at all-- was to
rally behind their banners. Joan’s military style was to attack; with herself
in the front, she was exposed to the utmost danger. Her soldiers had to swarm
closely behind her to protect her; otherwise she would be killed or captured.
And swarm they did. As the great military historian John Keegan has shown
(first when analyzing the battle of Agincourt, which happened when Joan was
about 4 years old), troops did not win or lose a battle because of the physical
shock when two battle lines clashed; it was a psychological shock, that made defenders
waver and pull back. Running away was dangerous: that was how most soldiers
were killed, in a posture unable to defend themselves and without the
solidarity of their own line to fend off the enemy. Joan provided the emotional
domination that broke the enemy line. It was quite literally charismatically
led victory.

Her
crowd charisma was building up for several months before she commanded the
King’s forces. As she traveled from her home to the royal court, and then to
the siege of Orleans for her first battle, she was greeted by crowds all the
way. Her word of mouth among the common people was terrific; and this
eventually was transmitted to the soldiers. Once launched, she traveled
everywhere in a mass spectacle.

How
did this get started? She acquired the reputation of a woman who heard voices
from the highest saints, conveying the will of God, with a political message:
defeat the English and crown the Dauphin as King of France. At key points--
talking with aristocrats and officials-- she told them what the voices said.
But this was not so much a solo as an aria against the background of a rising
chorus, the adulation of her admirers. Joan went to church as often as
possible. When traveling, even on an urgent mission, she would stop at churches
en route to hear mass. One gets the impression these were not regularly
scheduled masses such as exist in Catholic churches today; but that the local
priest would say a mass for Joan and her followers.* Joan was always extremely
moved, and wept copiously. The audience was not only impressed by her
sincerity, but joined in weeping. At the beginning of her charismatic career,
it is no exaggeration to say that she led people in contagious weeping.

*This was not unusual at the time. At
Agincourt, the English King Henry V heard mass three times in a row while
waiting for battle to begin.

We
moderns find it hard to get our heads around this; for us weeping is sadness,
or at best a private breakdown of being overwhelmed by personal feelings. But
the history of emotions has drastically shifted. Throughout the Christian
Middle Ages, the climax of public encounters was often weeping: monks would
weep as they pled for someone’s salvation or recovery; feuding families would
reconcile by throwing themselves at each other’s knees and weeping; defeated
burghers would meet their conquerers by kissing their hands and asking for
mercy, which was accepted when the conquerers too joined in the weeping.
Collective weeping was the main form of high-emotional solidarity, above all
newly created solidarity as divisions and conflicts were (temporarily)
overcome. Joan’s procession across France was a series of weeping-fests. It
happened not only in church. Wherever she stayed, people of all ranks would
come to see her; they might arrive as skeptics or political adversaries, but
would come away convinced by her genuineness. It was not so much that she told
them about her visions, but that they were impressed by her humility and
simplicity. She was everything that a saint should be. She brought tears to
their eyes.

We
have another problem of anachronism. Joan was doing all this when she was 17 or
18 years old, in an era when women were subordinate to men. In our bureaucratic
society when no one is allowed to do anything important until they are
officially adults and generally quite a lot longer working up through the
ranks, this seems impossibly young. But Charles VII, the Dauphin, succeeded his
father when he was 19; English Kings like Henry V and Henry VIII were leading
troops and actively reigning as early as age 14-to-18. Joan had no hereditary
right to anything, but the fact that she was young and female just added to her
marvelousness. She called herself Jeanne
la Pucelle, Joan the Maid or Virgin. It helped there was cultural resonance
with the cult of the Virgin Mary, at its height during those centuries.

Backstage charisma: Joan’s personal impressiveness had been building
up since at least her early teens. She was the youngest of five children,
daughter of a prosperous farmer who was headman of little village amid the
battlefields of northeastern France. Her father was a man of some importance,
who contracted business with local nobles and lawyers. He took over an
abandoned castle to serve as a refuge against the raids of mercenary soldiers--
and where Joan might imagine herselfa Queen. Joan sometimes joined her siblings in farm work but her mother
indulged her indoors; they lived next to the village church, where Joan
attended assiduously. She was extremely sensitive to what was going on around
her, and had an early desire to be a soldier-- so much so that her father
threatened to drown her in the river if she went off with soldiers (marauders
in bad repute). George Bernard Shaw was at pains to argue that she was no
beautiful romantic heroine but plain and asexual; she was tall and strong, with
all the seriousness of the managerial women that Shaw was extolling in the
early 20th century women’s movement. (I imagine her as a star soccer goalie.)
Having miraculous visions was not unusual among the medieval folk; there were
shephard boys exhibiting bleeding stigmata, beggars who started crusades and
children who went on them. Joan stood out from her competitors in the miracle
field by adding the image of a woman warrior, and bringing a message combining
religion and politics at just the moment when France was in its deepest crisis.

It is
revealing who her three inspirational saints were: St. Michael, actually
archangel, the one with the fiery sword who expelled Adam and Eve from the
Garden of Eden, and the chief of God’s forces in combatting the Devil. St.
Catherine, an ancient martyr of royal Egyptian descent (the lineage of
Cleopatra!) who endured tortures to proclaim Christianity against the Roman
Emperor. St. Margaret, a refugee from the Norman conquest of England, who fled
to Scotland and married the Scotish King. It is a collection of supernatural
military power, exemplary fortitude in martyrdom, and religious Queens-- and
anti-English to boot. Joan called them her “Council” as if they were her
official advisors. As Shaw pointed out, Joan was the type of person who thinks
in visual images; the voices she heard in her head, her internal dialogue, was
always politically up-to-date.

Joan’s
practical task was to convince supporters who would convey her to the royal
court, then in exile from Paris, which was held by the English. She had heard
voices for about 5 years before she launched her program; i.e. by the time she
was full-grown, but also the moment when it appeared the French dynasty would
be extirpated by crowning the English King Henry VI -- then a child of 8-- as
King of France.Her father would
not support her initially (Jesus had the same problem of not being a prophet in
his own home town), but she convinced her uncle to introduce her to the local
military commander. She convinced him by what seemed to him a miracle: she told
him of the defeat of French troops trying to raise the seige of Orleans (Feb.
12, 1429) before the commander himself had heard of it. When the news arrived,
this seemed like a miraculous prediction. It is characteristic of charismatic
persons to be perspicacious. Joan’s village was on the main east-west route
from Paris into Germany, and on the north-south road along the Meuse River
connecting Flanders with Lorraine and Burgundy, a cross-roads flowing with
refugees and soldiers; it was not unusual for a peasant to be more aware of
approaching dangers than a ranking nobleman.

And
Domrémy, her village, belonged to the personal domain of the Kings of France--
as distinguished from lands held by feudal lords in the unsteady chain beneath
the King. Her location made her a French royalist, at a time when the Duke of
Burgundy was far richer and the expanding power, although potentially stymied
by the dangerous game he was playing with the English and other feudal
contenders. The local commander was convinced enough to give her armour, a
horse, and a small military escort, plus an introduction to the Duke of
Lorraine-- a relative of the Dauphin’s Queen. So she was launched, picking up
reputation along the way, manifesting religious charisma with her combination
of national crusade and contagious weeping.*

* It
is convenient to think of Paris as the center of a clock, with an hour-hand
about 125-150 miles long; Domrémy is at 3 o’clock; the Dauphin’s court at
Chinon, 4.30;Poitiers, where she
was examined by a parlement, 7.30; Orleans, where she raised the siege, 6.30;
Rheims, the ancient cathedral city where she took the Dauphin to be crowned,
back up at 1.30; the remainder of her career spent fighting outside of Paris
and where she was captured, 1.00; burned at the stake at Rouen at 11 o’clock in
English territory near the Channel. The battle of Agincourt happened further
north, at 12 o’clock.

Arriving
at the Dauphin’s court at Chinon, Joan entered a political situation of rival
factions. Famously, the Dauphin hid himself among the courtiers; but she picked
him out immediately despite lack of royal insignia. We are in the realm of
miracle stories, or what passed for them; but a person with acute observation,
who had no doubt heard gossip of the Dauphin’s immature personality, would have
little difficulty in scanning body postures and facial expressions to find the
pocket of uneasiness in the crowd where he was pretending. Another incident
from the same period is more telling. One of the soldiers swore loudly and made
a lewd comment about her. She approached him and said: “A pity that you
blaspheme against God, when you are about to die.” Some time thereafter (probably
not the same day) the man fell into a river or moat wearing his armour and
drowned. Whether accurate or not, it solidified her miraculous reputation. It
illustrates her ability (again like Jesus) to pick people out of crowds and
confront them individually, shifting the tone to something jarring and
unexpected. It is not at all impossible that he was unnerved by the prediction
of his imminent death, reinforced by the following that Joan already had, even
in the divided court and certainly among the common people. In effect, she gave
him the evil eye, like the bone-pointing magic dreaded in primitive tribes.

And so
throughout the up-phase of her career. The court politicians being divided,
they referred her to a parlement (a conclave of canon lawyers, not a
legislative assembly) at Poitiers. The churchmen quizzed her skeptically about
her voices and visions-- contrary to modern views, the Catholic church was not
a push-over for miracles, and aimed to cull out the many contenders. One
learned theologian asked her what language her voices spoke; “Better than
yours,” she replied to his provincial accent. Asked to produce a miraculous
sign of her authenticity: “My sign will be to raise the siege of Orleans,” she
responded. “Give me the soldiers and I will go.” Full of self-confidence, she
was not intimidated by authorities. They quoted theology to her. “There is more
written in God’s book than in all of yours,” she said. Unabashed-- this was a
time when most women, even aristocrats, were illiterate-- she called for paper
and ink and dictated a message to the English commanders: “I order you in the
name of the Heavenly King to return to England.” Again, the calm confident
tone: not angry nor argumentative, but taking the initiative as a matter of
course. The judges wrote her message. *

* How
did Joan learn to argue with professionals? A clue is that her parents tried to
dissuade her from her mission by getting her married. A young man brought a
suit that she had been promised to him. She argued the suit herself before an
ecclesistical judge and won. In her early life, most of the time she was silent
about her voices; she was learning when to speak and how.

Given
a command of soldiers, she quickly changed the tone of the army. Troops were a
mixture of nobles with changeable loyalties, upstarts and mercenaries making
their way in a time of political chaos; and in any local battle, crowds of
peasants who might be attracted to scavenging and revenge on the wounded and
dead. Joan gave religious fervour to the peasants, the initial support of her
charisma. From the professional soldiers, she demanded that they cease cursing,
and to put away the camp-followers who entertained soldiers with sex and drink
in the long periods between battles. Shaw remarks on the power of prudery in
restoring order and morale in the army-- in this case, one that had gone
through a disastrous series of defeats. Probably not prudery per se, but Joan’s
focus on purpose and self-control; she converted some of the troops and got the
most fervent to follow her in assaults previous commanders were unwilling to
attempt. As mentioned, she led more with her banner than her sword; the only
instance recorded of her using it was when she used the flat of her sword to
drive away prostitutes from the camp -- rather like Jesus driving the
money-changers from the temple. And she turned mercenary soldiers, who got most
of their income from looting and by taking prisoners for ransom, into fighters
for a national cause.

Success-magic charisma: Her first success was to be heard.As she proceded from her family circle
to the local commander-- to the Duke of Lorraine-- to the Dauphin’s court-- to
the Poitiers parlement-- her supporters grew and stories of her successes in
winning over the elites were esteemed as miracles. In two months, she had
electrified the populace in a swath across central France. Reaching Orleans at
the beginning of May, she entered the city in a paroxism of public enthusiasm.
She rode around the walls followed by the city population, even closely
inspecting the silent English fortifications. At vespers in the cathedral, she
wept and brought everyone to tears. When French troops arrived, she paraded
them back and forth before the English, as if the sheer manifestation of
support would drive them away.

The
English siege hinged on blocking supplies and reinforcements, while the
besiegers themselves occupied a string of forts outside the walls. Rival bodies
of French troops squabbled over accepting Joan’s leadership and held back from
attacking these bastilles.Finally they launched an attack
without telling Joan; the attack failed but Joan turned around the retreating
soldiers and with her crowd of followers, took the first bastille. Joan devoted the next day to prayer, while the English consolidated
their scattered forces, and the French plotted to attack again without Joan.
Orders were left to keep the city gates closed upon her; but the clamor of her
followers overawed the commander of the gates.

When
she arrived at the strongest bastille,
the attack was flagging; she jumped into the moat and was holding a ladder
against the wall, ignoring a shower of arrows when one pierced her through the
shoulder. Carried to safety, she insisted on staying nearby. Handing her banner
to a trusted follower, she told him: “As soon as the standard touches the wall,
you will be able to enter.”“It is
touching now.”“Then go in, the
position is yours.” The attackers went up “as though there had been
stairs.”A crowd of civilians
surged behind them; bridges collapsed under cannon fire; English resistance
disintegrated inside the bastille and
the defenders were all massacred.

The
six-month siege was lifted; the remaining English retreated and were beaten
again on the road, this time without Joan’s leadership. It had been the
high-water mark of English penetration, the last major French city not in
English hands.

French
war-lords now wanted to follow up by liberating their own corners of France,
but Joan focused on the political goal: to get the Dauphin crowned. This meant
escorting him through hostile territory to Rheims. On the way her army was
challenged by a garrison from the fortified city of Troyes. Bringing her banner
before the city walls, she was followed by a crowd of common people who rapidly
filled the moat with firewood and trash, creating a bridge for the soldiers to
cross. The citizens panicked and the occupying troops parlayed to evacuate the place-- a
nearly bloodless victory. In a little more than two weeks, she brought the
Dauphin to Rheims and had him crowned. She had won the race. She knew the
English King could be proclaimed in Paris (and indeed he was, in 1431) but
Rheims was the traditional coronation place, and she got Charles there first.
In the cathedral she clasped the King’s knees and burst into tears, joined by
the entire congregation.

There
was a good deal more of France to be reconquered, but the momentum had shifted.
Joan’s successes had reversed a string of disastrous defeats: Agincourt in
1415, major losses again in 1421, near-annihilation of the French army in 1424,
a bad defeat on the road to Orleans a few weeks before Joan started out in
February 1429. After the coronation, Joan wanted to take all possible forces
and recapture Paris, but the war-lords had other priorities. King Charles VII
took the occasion to make a triumphal procession through the north-eastern
territories, receiving the capitulation of cities that had sided formerly with
the English.

Meanwhile,
a fresh English army arrived to reinforce Paris. When Joan attacked the outer
moats in September, she was wounded by an arrow through her thigh while
plumbing the depth of the water with her spear and calling for the moat to be
filled. Without emotional momentum, the place could not be carried and the
French took 1500 casualties. Her victory string was broken; enthusiasm on her
side was turning to blame. Joan was reduced to one among other commanders. In
minor battles outside of Paris, she took one city, but at another the siege
dragged on until the attackers themselves dispersed in an episode of rumour and
panic. Joan was still bold but her crowd magic no longer worked. Within a year,
in May 1430, she was captured while trying to relieve a Burgundian siege of
Compiègne. As soon as she arrived, she led a sortie that almost succeeded, but
a counter-attack drove them back. Joan, covering the retreat, was isolated on
the wrong side of the moat, surrounded and pulled from her horse.

Sold
to the English under the ransom system, she was tried as a witch (the enemy
interpretation of her supernatural voices) and executed. None of her former
allies tried to rescue her. The King himself no longer needed her. She had
rescued him from being treated like a child by his courtiers; but she treated
him like a subordinate too, under the voice of God. In fact, Charles VII had
grown up and became quite a capable King, reigning for 30 years and overseeing
the rebuilding of the French state. Becoming a martyr like St. Catherine must
have been in the back of Joan’s mind, if not in her game plan. Her voices
failed her, for the first time, by assuring her she would be rescued. When she
realized the voices were wrong, she stopped trying to escape (she had jumped
from a 60-foot tower and survived), and gave in to her fate. Both the inner and
outer sources of her charisma, her voices and her crowds, were gone. Her
effective charisma had lasted a little more than a year, most intensely in the
first few months.

Reputational charisma:The downstream of history was good to Joan’s reputation. She
was burned in 1431 after a lengthy show trial designed to bolster English
legitimacy. But the tide had turned: the English gradually lost their gains in
the north, accelerating after 1435 when the Duke of Burgundy switched sides and
made a treaty with the French King. In 1436 Charles VII was able to enter Paris
on his own. By 1453, the English lost their southwest territories in France, a
long hold-over from Norman days of patch-work feudalism, and the Hundred Years’
War was over. It was just at this time that the verdict of Joan’s witchcraft
trial was reversed by French jurists. After 1455 England was busy with its own
civil War of the Roses and unable to intervene abroad.

Joan
had not only saved the crown lineage but made a step towards reforming the
army. At the time of Agincourt, it was no longer feudal service by retainers
who followed their lords in return for grants of land; soldiers were promised
pay but seldom received it, and they lived off the people and the war itself by
looting and ransom. One reason troops were so unwilling to risk combat was they
were only attracted when chances were good for taking lucrative prisoners. The
English archers who had slaughtered the French knights at Agincourt were
outside the system-- too poor to be worth ransoming; neither were the peasant
crowds who aided Joan. The most cynical kind of warfare was being displaced by
a more ideological kind. Charles VII followed up in the late 1430s and 40s by
decreeing a royal monopoly on raising troops, at the same time prohibiting
anyone but the crown from imposing taxes. The reforms met resistance but
eventually enough royal companies were raised (paid and equipped by local
communities) to expel the English. It was the end of feudalism and the
beginning of the modern state; although it took Charles VII’s son, Louis XI (r.
1461-83) to establish more or less the borders of modern France. Lous XI was hardly
a hero; his successes came by diplomatic marriages and negotiations, together
with grasping for revenue wherever he could. Crooked and spider-like, paranoid
over plots and assassinations (he himself had rebelled against his father),
Louis XI built France as we know it, but could hardly be adulated for it. All
the more opening for the reputation of Joan of Arc, the woman who saved France.

Cleopatra: sexual power in
dynastic politics

Cleopatra
VII, Queen of Egypt, lived from 69 to 30 BC and reigned from 51 to 30. The
dates tell us something: Not only did she come to power when she was 18 years
old, but she was 39 when she died by suicide. That means she was an effective
politician at a time when her throne was constantly under threat, holding on
for 21 years. Although she is legendarily sexy-- the most famous example of
sexual power in all history-- that doesn’t explain much, considering that
extremely beautiful and erotic woman have generally been prized objects rather
than independent actors.* One could make out a case that powerful women have
generally beenplain-looking.

* A
very beautiful woman of my acquaintance, who has had a career as a political
insider, replied to my question about whether being beautiful was an advantage:
It’s a disadvantage-- men don’t take you seriously.

In
fact, how beautiful was Cleopatra? There are several surviving likenesses. One
version shows a woman, no longer young, without any of the trade-mark features
like huge coloured eye-liner, and not especially attractive. The other shows
her in a stereotyped pose as as Egyptian goddess.

Contemporary busts of Cleopatra VII

Cleopatra VII as temple goddess

Modern image of Cleopatra

No
question, she was a political operator of great skill. She was dealt a weak
hand and played it far longer than might be expected. She took on three of the
most famous men in antiquity, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Octavian/Augustus
Caesar and played them, on the whole, to a draw or better. Was she a
charismatic leader? Let us examine the criteria.

Frontstage charisma: Cleopatra did not make
speeches, but she certainly knew how to attract crowds. She visited Julius
Caesar in Rome in 46 BC, 2 years after their affair in Egypt. We don’t know if
she resembled Elizabeth Taylor hauled on a huge golden replica of the sphinx,
but she made quite a stir. She brought along their son Caesarion (“little
Caesar”), and her official husband, her younger brother Ptolemy XIV, plus a
large following. Caesar put her up in his country house and had a gold statue
of Isis, resembling Cleopatra, erected in his family temple in the Forum. All
this scandalized the Romans, especially the conservative republicans, all the
more so since Caesar’s own wife was in Rome, and Cleopatra was lobbying to have
Caesarion named his heir. Cleopatra’s presence could well have encouraged the
rumour that Caesar was planning on making himself King, and thus his
assassination. (Talk about femme fatale.)
In fact she was still in Rome on the Ides of March 44 BC, and left for Egypt
soon after.

She
had already shown her boldness at home. Cleopatra was Greek, of the dynasty
that had ruled Egypt since 300 BC. Although her ancestors always spoke Greek,
Cleopatra was the first to rule her subjects by speaking Egyptian; in fact she
could speak 9 languages and negotiated personally with neighbouring powers. She
further solidified her power at home by having herself declared a reincarnation
of the goddess Isis, and made herself the first female Pharoah.

An
even more spectacular incident was in 41 BC during the civil wars. Mark Antony
summoned her to Tarsus (southern Turkey) on charges of having supported his
rival. As Plutarch describes it:

“She
sailed up the river Cydnus in a barge with gilded poop, its sails spread
purple, its rowers urging it on with silver oars to the sound of the flute
blended with pipes and lutes. She herself reclined beneath a canopy spangled
with gold, adorned like Venus in a painting, while boys like Cupids in
paintings stood on either side and fanned her. Likewise the fairest of her
serving maidens, attired like river sprites and Graces, were stationed, some at
the rudder-sweeps, and others at the reefing-ropes. Wondrous odours from
countless incense-offerings diffused themselves along the river banks.”

Even
more important was the crowd reaction:“Of the inhabitants, some accompanied her on either bank of the river
from its very mouth, while others went down from the city to behold the sight.
The throng at the market-place in Tarsus gradually streamed away, until at last
Antony himself, seated on his tribunal, was left alone.”

Antony
is dominated before he even sees her. He invites Cleopatra to dinner, but she
makes him come to her. Of course! on her own turf:“Antony obeyed and went. He found there a preparation that
beggared description, but was most amazed at the multitude of lights. For, as
we are told, so many of these were let down and displayed on all sides at once,
and they were arranged and ordered with so many inclinations and adjustments to
each other in the form of rectangles and circles, that few sights were so
beautiful or so worthy to be seen.” (For its day, long before electricity, Lady
Gaga’s light show in the Superbowl.)

Cleopatra
was surrounded by lavish spectacle, but far from being trapped by it, like
Queen Elizabeth in her fancy gowns amid her courtiers, or most Chinese and
Japanese Emperors. Antony intended to shake down Cleopatra for money for his
campaign against Parthia (the big threat just then expanding from Iran into
Syria); he ended up following her to Alexandria for a year and neglecting his
wars. Cleopatra knew how to trap others in her spectacles, adjusting them to
the victim’s personality. Plutarch comments that Cleopatra observed Antony
liked jests and pranks, and adopted the same manner towards him.

“She
played dice with him, drank with him, hunted with him, and when by night he
would stand at the doors or windows of the common folk and scoff at those
within, she would go with him on his round of mad follies, wearing the garb of
a serving maiden. Antony also would array himself as a servant. Therefore he
always reaped a harvest of abuse, and often of blows, before coming back home;
though most people suspected who he was. The Alexandrians liked him, and said
that he used the tragic mask with the Romans, but the comic mask with them.”

Antony
was quite literally being a playboy, and Cleopatra was egging him on. They
created an exclusive club, dedicated to outdoing the other in the profusion of
their expenditures. Plutarch’s grandfather, who was a physician in Alexandria
at the time, said the royal cooks prepared food for a huge banquet, even though
it was an intimate dinner, but cooked at different speeds, so that whenever
Antony had a whim for a particular dish, it would be ready immediately.They would give away all the gold
beakers on the table for a clever remark. Cleopatra reportedly bet him she
could spend a fabulous sum on one dinner; when it arrived, it was quite plain,
but then she called for a chalice of wine, dropped her best pearl into it, and
drank it.

Nevertheless,
there was method in the madness, or culture in the context. It was a period
when Roman generals used wars and foreign conquests as income-making machines,
both to pay their soldiers, and to win votes with the populace in Rome. Julius
Caesar, although no party-animal himself, was famous for the extravagant games
and gladitorial shows he would put on before an election. Cleopatra knew what
she was doing. Egypt had the reputation of being the wealthiest part of the
ancient world, and she was constantly impressing Antony with this, no doubt
instilling the idea it would be better to be ruler of the world from Egypt than
from Rome. And extravagant spendour was a public statement. Especially in the
East, it was customary to bring mythology to life, in more than half-serious
fashion. When they first met at Tarsus, Plutarch says: “A rumour spread on
every hand that Venus was come to revel with Bacchus for the good of Asia.” *

*
After years of playing Bacchus in Alexandria, Antony’s story was about to end
in 30 BC by being crushed by Octavian’s army. Plutarch reports the rumour that
went around the city: “During the middle of the night, when the city was quiet
and depressed through fear and expectation of what was coming, suddenly
harmonious sounds from all sorts of musical instruments were heard, and the
shouting of a throng, accompanied by cries of Bacchis revelry and satyric
leapings, as if a troop of revellers, making a great tumult, were going forth
from the city; and their course seemed to be toward the outer gate which faced
the enemy, where the tumult became loudest and then dashed out. Those who
sought the meaning of the sign were of the opinion that the god to whom Antony
was always most likened was now deserting him.”

Cleopatra
played the frontstage charisma of spectacle in her own key. Her leadership
style in other areas had ambiguous results. Except when Caesar or Antony were
present, she played the man’s role. Her most important geopolitical weapon was
the Egyptian fleet. It had been traditionally the strongest in the
Mediterranean. Its strength kept the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt the most
durable of the three successor states that divided up Alexander’s empire.
During the wars of the Hellenistic period, there had been an arms race in naval
power; the banks of oars that gave ships speed and power to ram the enemy had
gone from triremes (three decks of rowers) to enormous battleships with six
banks of oars. By Cleopatra’s time, the Romans were catching up, but the
Egyptian navy still had a big reputation-- something of a paper tiger, but it
was Antony’s civil war that would find that out. In the same way, Alexandria
towered over Rome in its monumental architecture (Octavian would fix that when
he became Augustus). Cleopatra’s task was to keep up appearances.

She
commanded the fleet herself on at least two important occasions. In 43 BC, as
the Antony/Octavian alliance was still battling it out with Brutus’ faction,
Cleopatra took her fleet out into the Mediterranean in an effort to bring
supplies to Caesar’s successors. The fleet was badly damaged by a storm, Cleopatra
was sick, and they returned to Egypt. A more famous failure was in 31 BC, at
the battle of Actium (on the Aegean coast of Turkey), where Antony’s and
Octavian’s fleets lined up for a showdown. Cleopatra again personally commanded
the Egyptian fleet, which was in reserve at the rear of Antony’s ships. As the
battle mounted, a wind came up-- filling their sails and making rowing
unnecessary for speed; and Cleopatra suddenly took off with her fleet. Antony
impulsively followed her in a single ship, and was taken on board. His fleet
remained to fight, unaware their commander had gone; eventually as the battle
subsided, most of Antony’s ships were captured, and when news of his desertion
was confirmed, went over to Octavian’s side. Antony himself quickly regretted
his impulse; for 3 days he sulked on the prow of Cleopatra’s ship, angry or
ashamed to see her, Plutarch says; until Cleopatra’s women prevailed on them to
reconcile and to eat and sleep together.

Clearly
Cleopatra was no charismatic battle-leader. The reason for her flight has never
been explained; the surviving accounts are all from the Roman point of view.
Her strength was manipulating men, and here it proved too strong for her own
good.

Backstage charisma:Back-track to 48 BC. Julius Caesar arrives in Egypt, chasing
Pompey, the other famous Roman general, whom he has defeated in the first round
of civil wars. Cleopatra is 21, exiled by supporters of her 13-year-old brother
and co-ruler. Pompey had shown up seeking asylum, butPtolemy XIII decided to curry favor with Caesar by having
him executed and sending his head as a present. Julius, however, is offended--
possibly by a foreigner executing a Roman; possibly because this offered a good
excuse to annex Egypt, much the same way that he had annexed Gaul. At this
moment,Cleopatra has herself
smuggled into Caesar’s presence, rolled up in a rug. Exactly what happened is
not known, but the result is a tremendous diplomatic reversal of fortune. Instead
of annexing Egypt, Caesar puts Cleopatra back on the throne. Ptolemy XIII is
killed in battle, and Cleopatra formally marries yet another brother, Ptolemy
XIV. Julius, who is usually fast-moving and had plenty of mopping up to do in
the aftermath of the civil war, stays some months in Egypt with Cleopatra, who
has a son 9 months later.

How
does she do it? Both Plutarch and Cassius Dio comment on her voice and her
conversation. “For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether
incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her, but converse with her
had an irresistable charm... There was sweetness in the tones of her voice; and
her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to
whatever language she pleased.” (Plutarch) *

*
Shakespeare catches some of this, in Antony
and Cleopatra:

Age cannot wither her, nor
custom stale

Her infinite variety. Other
women cloy

The appetite they feed, but she
makes hungry

Where most she satisfies.

But
Shakespeare depicts her as flighty and moody, and misses Cleopatra’s political
astuteness and ruthlessness. George Bernard Shaw, who liked surprising
reversals and usually took issue with Shakespeare, presents her in Caesar and Cleopatra as a frightened
child. Incidentally, Shakespeare invents Antony’s famous “Friends, Romans, countrymen,
lend me your ears!” funeral address in Julius
Caesar; it is the turning
point of the play, but not mentioned in Plutarch. When Julius Caesar himself
writes about his wars, he mentions Antony as someone who is good at delivering
logistics and recruiting troops, and who can be relied upon to reinforce him at
crucial moments. When Cleopatra first meets Antony, that is what he is doing:
raising money from conquered cities. On the whole, Plutarch seems closest to
the truth, except that he cannot see the politics from Cleopatra’s point of
view.

Cleopatra’s
emotional domination over others was a combination of sex and political
awareness. She had a blithely pragmatic attitude about sex; she was married or
shacked up four times (including twice to her brothers). This was an era of
dynastic marriage politics; particularly in elite Roman families during the
social wars and other feuds of the last century of the Republic, leaders would
marry off their daughters or sisters in order to make an alliance; and divorce
when alliances were broken. Julius, Pompey, Octavian, and Antony alike did this
with each other. Love had nothing to do with it. Cleopatra was different in
that she chose her own partners; and her most important liasons were for love.
(Marrying her brothers was a matter of Egyptian royal custom, and she got rid
of them as soon as possible.)

Cleopatra’s
initiation into the great world had less to do with sex than with politics.
Royal family politics in Egypt may have been closely-held, but it was anything
but harmonious. Her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes, was overthrown in 58 BC in a
coup that made his two eldest daughters co-rulers. Auletes went into exile in
Rome, taking Cleopatra with him, until Roman military support put Auletes back
on the throne in 55 BC. One of the daughters being already dead (probably
murdered), Aultes had the other usurping daughted killed, and named Cleopatra
and her next younger brother co-regents with himself. From age 11 she had an
inside view of Roman politics while Caesar was conquering Gaul and forming the
first triumvirate including Pompey. By 14 she was co-ruler of Egypt with her
father; by 18 when her father died, ruler with her ten-year-old brother, whom
she soon stopped mentioning in royal documents and depicting on coins. By 21,
she had been pushed out in a coup, avoided assassination, and hooked up with
Caesar (could they have talked Roman politics while having sex?)

Her
rule in Egypt was never threatened domestically again. Her 18-year run itself
was some kind of record, set against innumerable political murders of the
previous half-century. Among her immediate ancestors, there were a dozen
changes of ruler, only two of whom died a natural death. Kings killed their
mothers, step-mothers, and children; sisters killed each other. Cleopatra used
the same methods, but she lasted longer because she always found a Roman
protector. Her brother Ptolemy XIII was killed in battle with Caesar’s troops;
and Cleopatra apparently poisoned her next brother/husband, Ptolemy XIV during
the period when Julius’s death left her vulnerable. And her visit to Antony at
Tarsus was not just about sex; her younger sister Arsinoe had taken refuge in
Ephesus, where Cleopatra arranged for Antony to have her killed.*

* Why
was Egyptian family politics so treacherous? Marriages that elsewhere would be
considered incestuous-- siblings, step-parents-- plus their cold-bloodedness,
meant they were without love or personal attraction. This was normal in
inter-family political marriages, but here the family itself contained the
biggest threats to one’s rule. Cleopatra herself was prolonging the system
while also trying to break out of it, sexual politics as alternative to
deadly-incestuous family politics.See my post, Really Bad FamilyValues--- for the origins of murderous family politics among the Ptolemies’
Macedonian ancestors at the time of Alexander. Before the Ptolemies, Egypt had
conventional incest taboos, and few royal murders.

Snaring
Antony gave Cleopatra safe harbor for a while. He spent a year with her in
Alexandria, during which she gave birth to twins. But it was not all non-stop
partying for ten years. Tensions between Octavian and Antony were emerging; and
Pompey’s forces were still to be reckoned with, especially the warships of his
son, Sextus Pompeius, in Sicily and the western Mediterranean. Eventually
Antony had to go back to war. He had been allotted the eastern part of Roman
possessions, which included Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, and needed new
conquests to keep up prestige and income. Antony was gone four years, returning
to Egypt in 36 BC. From then on, Alexandria was his home base, although he was
intermittently away on campaigns. Politically speaking, Antony was now leading
a double life. In Rome, he was one of the triumvirs controlling the state; but
he left his wife Fulvia in charge-- keeping up alliances, raising money and
troops for his side. (Cleopatra wasn’t the only woman empowered by a husband’s
absences.) In Egypt, Antony and Cleopatra ruled as husband and wife, having
married in an Egyptian rite-- even though, after Fulvia’s death, he was also
married to Octavian’s sister, in one more effort to patch up their alliance.

Antony’s
war against the Parthians in Iraq did not go well; but there were enough victories
in Armenia so that he could celebrate aRoman-style triumph in 34 BC. This in itself was a breach; a triumph was
a victory parade through the streets of Rome showing off captives and booty
from foreign victories, but Antony celebrated it in Alexandria. It was
Cleopatra’s high-water mark. Cleopatra and her son by Caesar-- Caesarion-- were
named co-rulers of Egypt. The daughter and two sons of Antony and Cleopatra
received titles reigning over possessions respectively in Libya, Armenia and
Parthia, the Levant and Asia Minor. This was playing fast and loose with Roman
conquests (also some that were iffy, such as Parthia). Antony himself took no
titles, but named Cleopatra “Queen of Kings.” Caesarion was being set up for
something bigger, as Julius’s son, presumably if Octavian could only be gotten
out of the way.

The
rest we know. Octavian broke with Antony and defeated him in 31 BC. Octavian
pursued him to Alexandria; Antony’s last loyal troops began to switch sides;
the rest is suicide. But even at the end-game, there are indications Cleopatra
was still maneuvering. Octavian sent feelers to Cleopatra promising good
treatment if she would betray Antony; he found out about it and it took some
patching up to get them back on loving terms. And there is a suggestion, in
Appian’s history of the civil wars, that Sextus Pompeius, having been defeated
by Octavian in Sicily, was negotiating for refuge and alliance simultaneously
with the Parthian king, with Antony, and even with Cleopatra. Who knows-- a
little more room in the timing and Cleopatra might have found herself another
protector.

Success-magic charisma: Obviously Cleopatra had no reputation like Caesar or
Joan of Arc for always being victorious. But consider her string of recovering
from losing her kingdom. She did it twice; first with her father, when he fled
to Rome; and again with Julius; preemptively enlisting Antony as her protector
was the third time. And she didn’t just rest with getting back to even. She saw
the opportunities for much bigger aggrandizement: getting her son Ceasarion
named heir to Julius, always an ace in the hole until the very end; getting Antony to crown his own children as kings, not only of former
territories of the old Ptolemaic empire, but of Roman conquests in the East.
She almost split the Roman empire, making herself Queen of Kings, as Antony
proclaimed her. It is one of the world’s great records of almost.

Reputational charisma: She did not exactly have a
reputation for being charismatic, except as a personal charmer of the first
order. But she certainly was famous. Already around 40 BC, Cleopatra must have
been one of the three most famous persons in the western world (along with
Antony and Octavian). Even her death added to the fame that made her, almost continuously,
the most famous woman leader in history.

Fame
per se is not charisma. It has its own causes. To note one here: very famous
persons tend to cluster, in networks of acquaintance and antagonism. All four
big names of the late Roman republic (we can add Pompey here) were connected,
both directly and by 2-link intermediate ties (usually sexual and familial). *
They made each other famous. The drama of Antony and Octavian revenging Julius;
the drama of Antony against Octavian; the drama of Cleopatra and everybody.
Fame multiplies fame, especially since it comes from interaction.

*
Pompey was married to Julius’ daughter, while Julius married Pompeia, a
relative of Pompey. Octavian was son of Julius’ niece, and adopted by him as
his son and heir. Antony was related to Julius on his mother’s side.

Was Cleopatra charismatic?Yes, in a unique combination of sexual backstage charisma,
frontstage spectacle, and political astuteness. She knew how to use spectacle
to keep her own freedom of action, since she directed it herself and did not
let it turn into an entrapping ceremonial routine.

Is
Cleopatra the archetype of distinctively female power? Or an anomaly of special
historical circumstances? She seems a premodern figure, of the era of
hereditary family rule, with enhanced chances for sexual maneuver while the
conservative Roman Republic of elite families was distintegrating
into dictatorships.

Could
anyone do this in the era of modern democracies-- that is, win power by sexual
charm? No doubt we could find examples of the charm, but who could a woman turn
it onto? She might captivate a political or corporate leader, but their
positions are temporary, not hereditary; and once captivated, what could they
do for her? --certainly not give her a kingdom.*

*
Ironically, the best opportunities for hereditary charisma today come inside
political movements, especially of the left or populist brands. A movement may
operate in a democracy (or for creating a democracy from an autocracy), but a
leader like Martin Luther King’s wife and children, Nelson Mandela’s wife, or
Aung San Suu Kyi or Indira Ghandi or Benazir Bhutto stepping into her father’s
or husband’s shoes, is not democratically chosen by the movement. It is the
power of reflected charisma or fame, plus having a head start in the magic
circle of political visibility, that makes them automatic contenders for the
top.

Perhaps
surprisingly, women’s access to top power is greatest in conservative and
autocratic regimes. In early modern Europe,the best example is Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia.
Not a great beauty when she arrived as a German princess, she had the
advantage-cum-disadvantage of being married to an incompetent young heir to the
throne. The joker in the deck of hereditary rule is that the skills and
energies of leadership are not automatically passed on. Weakness is an
opportunity for whoever is in position to seize the machinery of organization;
and Catherine expanded the modernizing bureaucracy started by her husband’s grandfather,
Peter the Great. The danger was assassination and palace coup, which Catherine
guarded against via a succession of court lovers, who murdered her opponents,
starting with her husband.

Future Catherine the Great at her betrothal, 1746

Women
do as well in autocracies as anybody, except generals. When political rulers
are careful to keep generals from taking over, the woman closest to the male
dictator has a unique opportunity.

And
this bring us to:

Jiang Qing, Mao Zedong’s voice

Dozens
of Chinese teenagers crowd into a room. They have trapped an official and are
demanding that he admit his errors. He is a bourgeois counter-revolutionary, a
capitalist roader, a revisionist black-liner, a deviant from the Red line
spelled out by the Great Leader, Chairman Mao. They wave the Little Red Book in
his face; they tear his shirt; they slap his face. They pressure him
relentlessly. It goes on for hours, sometimes day and night, in new shifts.
Finally he has confessed, been cross-examined, accused of insincerity, brought
out to make his public self-criticism. He is paraded in the streets as the
crowd watches, chants in unison, waving their Little Red Books of Mao’s
sayings.

It is
the Cultural Revolution and this is a struggle session. It happens in dozens of
places, then in thousands-- first at universities in Beijing, then government
offices, schools, factories, newspapers and radio stations, spreading across
the country. Demonstrators split, accuse and attack each other. They have gone
too far, they have attacked the wrong person. They are counter-revolutionaries,
anti-party groups. No, the accusers themselves are the counter-revolutionaries,
bourgeois road-takers, fake leftists. They clash in the streets, invade each
other’s schools and dormitories, fortify themselves with barricades. They take
prisoners and torture them into making confessions. Such are the scenes in
China from 1966 to 1969.

Frontage/backstage merged:It is group charisma, enthusiastic energy that will not be
denied. It is based on unity, and casting out disunity. It is done in the name
ofour great comrade leader Mao
Zedong. But he is not here. Struggle sessions proliferate as student Red Guards
form spontaneously. Mao is the guiding spirit, but he gives little or no
instructions, only slogans, from a distance. There is no chain of command. It
is a movement outside all chains of command, designed to purge and purify and
eliminate all command.

Everything
is done in groups, in moveable public gatherings. Frontstage and backstage are
merged; there is to be no backstage where anyone can hide.

Jiang
Qing (Chiang Ch’ing) is in at the beginning of the turmoil. In 1965, she and a
young newspaper editor criticize a play written by a Beijing official as a
veiled attack on Mao. He has been under fire within the communist leadership
since 1959, for the failure of the Great Leap Forward, an attempt to spring
China into an industrial giant rivaling the Soviet Union, and to abolish all
remnants of bourgeois private property. But the communes failed, agriculture
fell, famine followed. Mao retired from the government, gave up all offices,
retaining only one: Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. He became
surrounded by reformers who want trade rather than self-sufficiency and
isolation, pragmatism rather than communist perfection.

In
1965 and into spring 1966, Jiang Qing and her allies strike back on behalf of
Mao. She had been his wife since 1938 (Mao’s fourth), while communists were
protecting their enclave in northwest China, avoiding the Japanese and waiting
their time to overthrow the Nationalists. Before that, Jiang Qing (this was her
party name assumed at this time), had been a young movie star, until the
Japanese overran Shanghai. She had risen from the bottom, her mother a
concubine, cast out from her family, degraded to a servant and prostitute; the
future Jiang Qing made her way by her beauty and her acting talent, marrying
and divorcing a string of men who she met in her progress through school and
theatre. Mao soon took up with her, although other Party leaders objected-- Mao
was already married to a long-serving Party member who had made the Long March
with him. Mao did not yet have the absolute authority of later on; he agreed to
marry Jiang Qing secretly, keep her out of public eye, allow her no place in
Party affairs for 30 years. Jiang Qing became his private secretary, as
backstage as one could be in the CCP.

Jiang Qing as film star, 1935

Mao and Jiang Qing, 1946

Now,
with Mao 73 years old and fading, Jiang Qing and her followers went on the
attack in his behalf. The play, they declared in the press, set in the past
about an evil emperor who dismisses a loyal official, was really about a
high-ranking communist who has criticized Mao. The play’s official supporters
struck back, decreeing the dispute merely an academic matter apart from
politics. In May 1966, Jiang Qing renewed the attack: academic matters are no
place to hide from political issues of life or death for the Great Proletarian
Revolution; such writers and their supporters must be reformed and purged. Mao
got the Politburo (central committee of the Chinese Communist Party) to agree.
Shortly after, a Beijing University teacher put up the first wall poster
attacking the older professors as “black anti-party gangsters.”So-called “work teams” were quickly
sent out by government ministries to investigate and purge the schools and
universities, but they served mainly to shatter authority. By mid-summer,
student Red Guards exploded into the power vacuum, launching their own struggle
sessions. The Cultural Revolution was under way.

Jiang
Qing’s position in the regime was merely as head of film and theatre (including
the Beijing opera), but a revolutionin culture was being demanded. The material foundations of communism
existed but the ideological superstructure remained to be reformed. Young
students, born since the 1949 revolution, who had no memory or taint of the old
ways, were the best troops for this assault on their recalcitrant elders.
Thought reform (what American prisoners during the Korean War had called
brain-washing) was their task.

To
direct the campaign, the Politburo set up a new committee, the Central Cultural
Revolution Group. Jiang Qing was only a Vice-chairman but soon became its real
power behind the scenes, since everyone assumed she spoke for Mao-- she
certainly acted as if she did. She and three of her protégés came to be known
as the Gang of Four.

Mao
spoke out only intermittently. At first he mostly praised the actions of the
Red Guards. Police were forbidden to interfere with the Red Guards, even when
they used violence; the army was forbidden to interfere, then required to
cooperate; all students were to be allowed to travel to Beijing, all officials
to help by providing free train travel and accommodations. It was at this time
that the personality cult of Mao began, with demonstrators carrying pictures of
Chairman Mao everywhere, brandishing his Little Red Book (published when he was
under criticism in 1964). People’s Liberation Army general Lin Biao came
aboard, vying with Jiang Qing as the greatest of Mao’s public adulators,
declaring in a speech: “everything the Chairman says is truly great; one of the
Chairman’s words will override the meaning of tens of thousands of ours.” As
the Cultural Revolution burgeoned into violence and destruction of old temples
and religious monuments in the summer of 1966, Mao urged all Red Guards to come
to Beijing, where 11 million of them paraded through Tienanmen Square to cheer
Mao and Lin Biao standing beside him. Eventually the two names were always used
in conjunction in public announcements, “Chairman Mao and Vice-Chairman Lin.”

Jiang
Qing and Lin Biao were now allies, initiating fresh attacks on recalcitrant
targets. In January 1967, they crushed resistance from China’s second major
city, Shanghai, by encouraging Red Guard assaults against all municipal officials,
and setting one of the Gang of Four in charge of the city. Next month, Jiang
Qing and Lin Biao demanded purges and “class struggles” in the military. Army
generals pushed back, but again Mao backed Jiang Qing’s initiative. Jiang Qing
was flying from one city to another, addressing mass meetings and denouncing
opponents as “counter-revolutionaries.” In July, she went so far as to order
Red Guards to replace the army.

The
Cultural Revolution spiraled out of control. Local officials mobilized their own
Red Guards to combat others, workers took various sides, and the Red Guards
based in different schools tended to split and fight against each other. In
cities with armaments factories and military installations, fighting was
particularly violent, seizing military weapons or embroiling the soldiers.
Altogether 1.5 million persons were killed during these years. Many of those
who were purged and humiliated committed suicide.

Eventually
Mao, realizing the administrative apparatus of the country was being destroyed,
ordered the military to stop the Red Guard purges, and sent 18 million youth to
work in the remote countryside. Schools and universities were closed. They went
off ritualistically at the railroad stations, singing about their new task. It
turned out to be farm labor, living in sheds and caves and subsisting on poor
people’s food like mushrooms, an exile that would last almost ten years.

Political
struggle at the top went into a new phase. In 1969, Jiang Qing was promoted to
the Poliburo; Lin Biao moved up to be second-in-command and Mao’s successor.
But the Red Guard weapon was gone, and the army had reasserted its
indispensability. Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), the other famous communist hero
from the early days of revolution, was viewed increasingly as a threat. Jiang
Qing treated him as a personal enemy; although she could not remove him from
his official position as Premier, she made Zhou sign an order to arrest his own
brother, and had his son and daughter tortured and murdered, even cremating the
body to forestall an autopsy. Meanwhile, Lin Biao was provoking jealousies,
including from Mao himself, and probably from Jiang Qing, who was rumoured to
be aiming to make herself Chairman of the CCP. By 1971, Lin Biao was being
pushed out, and his supporters (notably Lin’s son) launched a military coup.
Over a period of six days in early September 1971, there were attacks on Mao’s
private train, fended off by guards posted for hundreds of miles along the
tracks. Lin Biao with his family fled by plane to Russia. They never made it,
the plane crashing in Mongolia in circumstances that have never been explained.

With
Mao’s health declining, Jiang Qing’s prominence was at its peak. But political
opposition and public hatred of her were building. She and the Gang of Four
controlled all news reporting and cultural performances. Pivoting on Lin Biao’s
downfall, she launched a campaign called “Criticize Lin, criticize Confucius”
which tried to link her former ally with cultural reactionaries, and implicitly
with Zhou Enlai.* But the public was exhausted with campaigns of militant
communism; exhausted too with forced rituals of pretending to show
frontstage enthusiasm for whatever was the campaign of the moment-- and knowing
the target could change abruptly.

* Done
with typical Chinese innuendo and punning on names, since Zhou had the same
name as the Duke of Chou, hero of ancient Confucian texts.

The
campaign against Zhou Enlai turned into the downfall of Jiang Qing. When Zhou
Enlai died in January 1976, his state funeral spilled over into spontaneous
commemorations all over China. The Gang of Four issued instructions in the
press against wearing mourning emblems for Zhou, but as a test of control it
signalled the wrong result. Deng Xiaoping, soon to take over as the great
market reformer, delivered the funeral oration in front of all the Communist
leaders except Mao, who was already dying. Again in April, at a traditional
festival for the dead, crowds put up posters in Tienanmen Square praising Zhou
Enlai, and-- for the first time-- publically criticizing Jiang Qing. One person
would read the poster aloud, while the people behind him would form a “human
microphone”-- repeating the words in loud voices so that it carried back into
the crowd. [Guobin Yang, 148] Security forces made arrests and Deng Xiaoping
was put under house arrest. But it was a nervous equilibrium. Mao died on
September 9, Jiang Qing at his side. Within a month, she and the Gang of Four
were arrested by a special military unit. There were celebrations all over
China.

Jiang
Qing was imprisoned for 5 years while Deng Xiaoping consolidated power, then
put on trial in 1981. Refusing to recant, she had maintained a stoic silence.
At the nationally televised trial, she was the only one of the Gang of Four who
spoke up. “I was Chairman Mao’s dog,” she said. “I bit whoever he asked me to
bite.” Sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment, she committed suicide
in 1991.

Success-magic charisma did not cling to Jiang Ching,
except during her years of upward ascent between 1966 and 1971 when it was
dangerous to challenge her. Being feared is not real charisma, if we define it
as the power to move people spontaneously. We could call the entire movement
group magic charisma, enthusiastic believers in the infallibility of their
collective will. In fact Mao’s policies failed repeatedly, but his Little Red
Book was treated like a magic talisman, providing all the answers. And it was dangerous to disregard it. Call it
the magic of hope, the magic of a movement armed with an embodied ideology--
they had it in their hands, thousands of hands, visible wherever one went.
Their mass mobilization was proof of their magic, the palpable proof of their
power over whoever resisted.

In the
not-very-long run, it was self-undermining. The movement so certain of its path
repeatedly split, each faction lashing out in fear of being labelled on the
wrong side of history, until it must have become apparent there was no magic
path to success. It was the self-destruction of the egalitarian revolution,
like the Reign of Terror in Paris during 1793-94, when the French revolution
cannibalized itself.

Reputational charisma: Jiang Qing was only secondarily famous during the Cultural
Revolution, since she always portrayed herself as the conduit of Mao’s wishes.
She took the most radical initiatives and Mao backed them up, at least for a
while; and even when he had to pull back and send the Red Guards into exile,
she quietly enhanced her official position and her backstage power. As Mao
weakened and his opponents returned, Jiang Qing became increasingly prominent
on her own-- all the more so as her main rival in riding on Mao’s image, Lin
Biao, became the new target for attack. But now fully in the public eye, Jiang
Qing acquired what might be termed negative charisma, as the most hated person
in China. Certainly she played the part of arch-villain at the trial of the
Gang of Four, defiant to the end. She had once played the lead in Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, the feminist heroine who
walks out and slams the door. This is how she went out in real life: one person
who could not be thought-reformed, who would never give in to performing
self-criticism.

Jiang
Qing and Lin Biao had reflected charisma, in the halo of
Mao Zedong. But Mao’s charisma, too, was being created simultaneously during
the Cultural Revolution; and they were the stage-managers of his
reputation. If the puppet-master was calling the plays, Jiang Qing found she
could not entirely control what Mao would do, especially when he had to clean
up the destruction she encouraged. What was happening was the joint
construction of each other’s charisma, in all its degrees of unreality and the
emotional power of collectivebelief.

Was
there any distinctively feminine aspect to Jiang Qing’s charisma? Her early
career was made by sexual attraction and the ability to choose partners and
change them as a better one came along. Some men attempted suicide when she
left them. This may have been a reason why the early communist leaders were
unwilling to let Mao marry her. Late in life, Mao had a quasi-harem of younger
women, no doubt downgrading Jiang Qing’s strictly erotic position. * But she
had been his private secrtary, keeper of his closest secrets, and the most
politically adept of Mao’s wives and lovers. In this respect, Jiang Qing
resembles Cleopatra.

* It
was rumoured that Mao and Jiang Qing had separated in 1973, although it was
never announced, and she continued to play on her reputation as Mao’s wife.

Better
than anyone, Jiang Qing was able to ride on Mao’s image and manipulate it to
her own ends. She lasted longer and did better than the famous general, Lin
Biao. This must have come from her intimate tie with Mao. Sex, love, a long
career of living closely together-- nothing could put someone in a better
position to claim to channel a great leader’s wishes.

The question once again: when
are women charismatic leaders?

Jiang
Qing was not the only prominent woman in the Cultural Revolution. Nie Yuanzi, a
young philosophy instructor at Beijing University, put up the first wall poster
that sparked the movement. She became leader of one of the biggest Red Guard
groups in the city, chaired a Red Guard unity congress, and attempted to take
over Beijing the way Red Guards had overthrown the municipal goverenment in
Shanghai. [Walder, 279] But her group was badly split by violence inside her
own university, some of which she ruthlessly ordered herself. She was
criticized for being dictatorial, and Jiang Qing had to intervene to save her.
The communists were pursuing a unisex policy at this time, men and women
dressing alike -- and taking identical, non-gender-marked names. There were a
number of women among Red Guards leaders, although men predominated. The
radical revolutionary atmosphere favored some gender equality in the
leadership, but Jiang Qing did better than other women, with her double
sources of power.

Joan
of Arc lived at the cusp of a big structural transformation, the end of feudalism
and the rise of the modern state. It is in just such locations in history where
the biggest names are made.It was
also virtually the last time battles were won by charging the enemy with
hand-arms. Cannon were beginning to come in, and would be used not just in
sieges to batter walls but to sweep battlefields, along with musquet fire.
Castles were being replaced by organization and logistics. Joan, the leader
with a sword-- really, the leader with the banner followed by the swords-- was
near the end of the time when anyone could lead by sheer inspiration from the
very front of the troops.

Cleopatra,
too, lived at a time of structural transformation. This may be the underlying
logic in the fact that the other candidate for the most famous woman of all
time-- Mary, mother of Jesus-- was born in the next generation after Cleopatra,
and within a few hundred miles of each other; Judea being one of the satellite
kingdoms in the Ptolemaic empire, taken over in the Roman conquest. Super-fame
comes from being in on the action of important people, however that is read by
following generations. Cleopatra is the end of something, Mary and her son the
beginning of a more universal movement, facilitated by a universal empire.
Being a charismatic leader means taking a very active part in the action.
Cleopatra did that, in a spectacular way that makes her particuarly memorable
as a political woman. If her political skills are veiled in her erotic
reputation, that is appropriate, since that was how she presented herself. Sex
is probably a universal resource, but also a liability.Cleopatra knew how to use
the political iron hand in the sexual glove, a move that was more structurally available
to women in a time of hereditary family dynasties.

Where
does that leave us? The conditions that made Joan of Arc and Cleopatra possible
no longer exist. Jiang Qing, who has some resemblance to Cleopatra’s methods
but wrapped in a Mao jacket, shows what remains-- at least in the vehement form
of charisma in the midst of dangerous and radical movements. As I noted, stable
democracies do not seem to be very good for women’s dramatic domination on the
political stage. If it is to be found, look for periods of turmoil where
backstage politics meshes with turmoil in the streets.

References

Jules
Michelet. 1853/1957. Joan of Arc.

George
Bernard Shaw. 1924.Saint Joan: Preface.

John
Keegan. 1976. The Face of Battle.

Cambridge Modern History. Vol. I. 1907.

Chambers Biographical
Dictionary.

Randall
Collins. “Jesus
in Interaction: the Micro-sociology of Charisma”